Les cuistots de sa majesté

Nothing But Trouble (1944)

** (out of 4)

Laurel and Hardy meet a young boy and soon they discover that he's really a King. The duo must protect the boy from a few people trying to kill him. Once again, I had heard this was a pretty bad film but while it's miles from Hal Roach material, the film contains a few laughs and has a little charm to it. It's too bad Warner isn't including this in their upcoming set but my recording from TCM, which seemed to be remastered, will do just fine. The best moment takes place in a zoo where L&H must try and steal a streak away from a lion. Another nice moment is when Laurel is trying to ref a football game. Most of the gags are lazy and fall on their face but the film is a decent time killer.

This latter-day Laurel & Hardy vehicle finds the legendary comedy duo in fine form, as Stan & Ollie play guys who desire employment as a butler & chef (respectively). They make the acquaintance of a boy (David Leland) who is actually the youthful ruler of a fictional country, although his big dream is to play football for Notre Dame. Stan, Ollie, and the boy king all find themselves in peril due to the machinations of the kings' scheming uncle (Philip Merivale).

"Nothing But Trouble" concentrates more on farcical situations rather than slapstick, and it's overall nothing that delivers true belly laughs. But the stars still make it engaging and enjoyably silly, especially in scenes like the one where Ollie is trying to cut through a persistently tough "Steak a la Oliver", has no luck...and Stan gets him a saw!

Directed by Sam Taylor ("Safety Last!"), this drags a little in scenes not featuring the stars, but it generates enough good-natured chuckles to make it a good time. It also leads to a hair-raising climax with a long drop in front of our heroes. And the supporting cast (Leland, Merivale, Mary Boland, Henry O'Neill, and John Warburton) serves Stan & Ollie well.

My favorite bit: Stan having to be prodded to practice proper serving etiquette.

Six out of 10.

Nothing But Trouble, like most of the films Laurel and Hardy made for MGM and Fox at the end of their career, is really sad to watch. For fans familiar with their earlier work, it is depressing to see them half-heartedly reworking their earlier material. It is unfortunate that these weak films from the end of their career are among their most frequently found video titles. Younger people picking up Nothing But Trouble off the video rack may never realize what they are missing.

Everyone knows that Laurel & Hardy did their best work together in the '20's and '30's but this one is also an enjoyable Laurel & Hardy movie, that differs from their early work but is entertaining and fun in different ways.

It's not the sort of Laurel & Hardy movie with lots of slapstick in it, at least not the classic kind of. It's more the sort of comedy that relies on its writing and the comical situations and of course on the way Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy execute it all. They still haven't lost their touch in this movie and it provides the movie with a couple of great and fun moments. Nothing too classic or fancy, just some good old fashioned harmless clean entertainment that still serves its purpose very well.

Of course the story isn't much special and at times its also distracting from Laurel & Hardy's antics and it felt it was even holding them down at points but at least the movie has a good enough story, which can't be said about many other Laurel & Hardy flicks from the '40's.

The movie made me laugh more than the usual kind of comedy, for that reason alone already I must rate it higher than average.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

All the great movie comics made poor comedies in comparison to their best ones. For every THE BANK DICK and IT'S A GIFT, W.C.Fields did a MRS. WIGGS OF CABBAGE PATCH or ALICE IN WONDERLAND. For every DUCK SOUP and A NIGHT AT THE OPERA, the Marx Brothers did a LOVE HAPPY or a STORY OF MANKIND. Chaplin's MODERN TIMES and MONSIEUR VERDOUX is "balanced" by A KING IN NEW YORK and A COUNTESS FROM HONG KONG. Keaton's THE GENERAL and SHERLOCK JR. have the negatives of WHAT, NO BEER or BOOM IN THE MOON. For all of Abbott and Costello's THE TIME OF THEIR LIVES or BUCK PRIVATES, one has to look at DANCE WITH ME HENRY.

The same with Laurel & Hardy. Their last ten films, for M.G.M. and 20th Century Fox are dismissed. I think the reason is that these films lack the atmosphere built up by Hal Roach and his production staff. But what is forgotten is how often Roach and Laurel (the real creative half of the team) failed to agree on film production. SWISS MISS appears to have been butchered, in part, by Roach. There are probably other examples, particularly as Laurel wanted more expensive budgets on his films (such as the nightclub in OUR RELATIONS) while Roach constantly tried to clamp down on expenses.

When they joined MGM Laurel & Hardy were still quite popular, but the leading comic team of that moment (1941) was Universal's Abbott & Costello. Though similar in physical juxtaposition (thin Stan and Bud v. fat Ollie and Lou) the personalities were widely different. Stan was not a wise guy like Bud Abbott, and Ollie had more misplaced self-confidence than timid Lou Costello). But the films that were given to them were somewhat like those of Abbott & Costello. The latter's BUCK PRIVATES is mirrored in L & H's GREAT GUNS. It was like the MGM studio did not really know what to do with them - and probably that is true. Don't forget how Louis B. Mayer had little sympathy with comedians - witness his actions against the Marx Brothers and Buster Keaton. Why should Laurel & Hardy get any better treatment? The last ten films then have to be judged by this background of neglect. As such, one looks for whatever is positive in them. Sometimes it is surprising.

SPOILERS COMING UP The best moments in NOTHING BUT TROUBLE deal with Stan and Ollie trying to cook and serve their employers (Henry O'Neill and Mary Boland), and the conclusion with Philip Merivale's poisoning plot against his nephew. The business with Stan offering a saw to cut the piece of purloined steak is wonderful. But the business with Merivale is quite unique.

It is similar to the situation in the Marx Brothers' THE BIG STORE, where in the concluding chase in the store Douglas Dumbrille, the film's villain, starts taking over the comic punctuation of the sequence, and carries them off quite well (in fact, he takes over the film). Here Merivale does, in particular when the poisoned canapé is mixed up so thoroughly by the boys that Merivale does not know which important social/political/financial figure at the party is going to eat the poisoned piece. Momentarily he thinks it is Mary Boland, but it just appears she swallowed the wrong way. But Merivale goes through the tortures of the damned until the end of the sequence. And, as it turns out, there is a neat wrap up to the matter just before the film concludes.

It is sort of symptomatic to the trouble of Mayer's lack of concern approach with his pure humorist - he so did not care about the actual finished product, that he was willing to let the film's villains take over the comedy. It makes one appreciate Merrivale more, just like THE BIG STORE makes one regard Dumbrille more highly. But it really does not add much luster to L & H anymore than the other added to the reputations of the Marx Brothers.